This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Public transit is ground zero for race realism. I don’t understand how anyone in NYC can ride the subway without, as they say, “noticing”. I lived in New York for a few years and still visit now and then and you would have to have seriously impaired pattern recognition ability to not come out of the experience extremely racist. The guy is obviously in the wrong, I don’t even need to click the link to know. MTA allows all kinds of insanely degenerate behavior from certain groups. To actually end up cuffed he really had to be asking for it
No, race realism is also wrong, the actual reason is class/subculture for which you are using skin colour as a proxy, due to the US having a underclass primarily composed of black people. I live in a European country and there is a social class that behaves in identically disruptive ways on public transport, despite being as white as the rest of the population.
I get the historical and current issues with racism in the US, but I do think it blinds both the left and right to the possibility that culture is the biggest issue.
Those anti-social underclass whites exist in America too, but they're not as anti-social per capita as blacks of the same class. For pretty much every class, education, income level, blacks commit more crimes. Infamously, low income whites have lower murder rates than high income blacks. There really does seem to be a general ancestry effect independent of other social factors.
Of course, this does not mean there are not sensible policies that could not reduce these discrepencies, including reversing counterproductive progressive attempts to solve the problem.
However, it seems to me that parity between whites and blacks in anti-social behavior could only be achieved under circumstances where blacks were significantly less free than whites. I value freedom highly, so I am disinclined to take that trade-off. But that means accepting large discrepancies that fuel racial prejudice and discrimination and make it difficult for diverse cultural groups to coexist and share the same public and political institutions.
I see no solutions to this quandary except perhaps widespread use of advanced genetic engineering or embryo screening to breed out these differences over a few generations.
Beyond general freedom as an argument - if you start restricting the rights of individuals based on their genetic predispositions, why stop at black vs white?
The crime rate difference between whites and asians is even greater than between whites and blacks. Left handed people are more likely to be criminals as well. And of course, the crime rate difference between men and women is gigantic.
Despite that, I highly doubt @ArjinFerman and the other race realists here are sexist against men and racist against all ethnicities other than East Asian.
Obviously yes, I agree that we shouldn’t get into DNA screening people and preemptively punishing them. However when it comes to men I actually do favor some sexist restrictions against men. For example I think men should have probably have more firearm purchase restrictions than women. Maybe even requiring 2 adult women to testify to a man’s good character to purchase a firearm seems reasonable, while such a restriction on women would be unnecessary
Then when a woman purchases the firearms that are used in a capital crime due to this restriction we can give them honorary doctorates.
You joke, but firearms purchases by gangsters girlfriends are already a major problem that democrats won't address because it isn't posturing at lawful gun owners and republicans won't address because it admits gun violence is a problem.
The federal agencies in question refuse to prosecute. How would you suggest Republicans force them to start prosecuting? Should we make it double illegal, so that they can decline to prosecute two federal felonies rather than one?
Pointing out the ways in which the Federal Bureaucracy make a complete hash out of rule of law is something we've been fighting aggressively to get into the overton window for some time now. "Stop trying to pass new gun regulations and simply enforce the ones we already have" has been a foundational part of Republican argumentation on the gun issue for the last thirty years at least.
My suggestion — personnel is policy. Purge the people who work for those agencies, and replace them with people who will prosecute. It's the same advice I give when it comes to every way in which the Federal bureaucracy are being Leftists who #Resist when Republicans win elections. (Note, I didn't say "when Republicans are in charge" because merely winning elections and taking charge are two different things.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link